Canadian Politics Thread

[Future Considerations]

 

11 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

FC, do you have anything of substance to add to the thread?

 

 

Hi aGENT, nothing as bold as your statement : 

 

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Taxes aren't the problem.

In the news yesterday : 

 

The Bank of Canada is warning that waning productivity growth in the country is an “emergency” that can force higher interest rates and limit rising wages for Canadians.  

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/10384078/bank-of-canada-productivity-emergency/

 

Carolyn Rogers, “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” she told the crowd.

 

Canadian productivity rates have fallen in six consecutive quarters. 

 

One of the main issues dragging down Canadian productivity rates is a lack of business investment. 

 

Businesses also need more certainty in the Canadian policy environment to be able to invest confidently in their operations, Rogers added.

 

Government incentives and regulatory approaches that change year-to-year do not inspire confidence among business, Rogers said.

 

Rogers noted that while productivity has indeed taken off in the U.S., Canadian levels are on par with where they stood about seven years ago.

---------

 

Most Canadians don't have enough after tax money to invest in local economies, to innovate, to become entrepreneurial and for many, to save up enough after tax dollars, to buy themselves a property or an investment property.

 

The Governments solution seems to be :  hire more government workers, increase taxation, run large deficits, very limited infrastructure spending.

 

Strange that BoC response to bad productivity is to leave interest rates higher for longer.  I thought they wanted to slow the economy (lower productivity) to battle inflation,  now they need to leave interest rates higher to battle low productivity....  i don't get it. 

 

Higher interest rates and high rates of taxation are a problem for me and many in our country.   We are a young country with many hard working and smart citizens, we just don't have the capital required to invest in ourselves, in our businesses, in our communities and even in our country.  I would think more and more Canadians are likely choosing to invest their rrsps into foreign economies.    Our country is resource rich, we are a young country.  Our citizens need to be empowered, not governed harder with excessive murky regulations that change year to year. 

 

do i really have to explain that when you rule me harder my productivity doth wane.  I shall render unto ceaser what is his, why even bother complain, is complaint even productive anyways.  I will put no trust in princes and get on with my day, seeya later.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

[Satchmo]

18 minutes ago, Future Considerations said:

 

 

 

Hi aGENT, nothing as bold as your statement : 

 

In the news yesterday : 

 

The Bank of Canada is warning that waning productivity growth in the country is an “emergency” that can force higher interest rates and limit rising wages for Canadians.  

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/10384078/bank-of-canada-productivity-emergency/

 

Carolyn Rogers, “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” she told the crowd.

 

Canadian productivity rates have fallen in six consecutive quarters. 

 

One of the main issues dragging down Canadian productivity rates is a lack of business investment. 

 

Businesses also need more certainty in the Canadian policy environment to be able to invest confidently in their operations, Rogers added.

 

Government incentives and regulatory approaches that change year-to-year do not inspire confidence among business, Rogers said.

 

Rogers noted that while productivity has indeed taken off in the U.S., Canadian levels are on par with where they stood about seven years ago.

---------

 

Most Canadians don't have enough after tax money to invest in local economies, to innovate, to become entrepreneurial and for many, to save up enough after tax dollars, to buy themselves a property or an investment property.

 

The Governments solution seems to be :  hire more government workers, increase taxation, run large deficits, very limited infrastructure spending.

 

Strange that BoC response to bad productivity is to leave interest rates higher for longer.  I thought they wanted to slow the economy (lower productivity) to battle inflation,  now they need to leave interest rates higher to battle low productivity....  i don't get it. 

 

Higher interest rates and high rates of taxation are a problem for me and many in our country.   We are a young country with many hard working and smart citizens, we just don't have the capital required to invest in ourselves, in our businesses, in our communities and even in our country.  I would think more and more Canadians are likely choosing to invest their rrsps into foreign economies.    Our country is resource rich, we are a young country.  Our citizens need to be empowered, not governed harder with excessive murky regulations that change year to year. 

 

do i really have to explain that when you rule me harder my productivity doth wane.  I shall render unto ceaser what is his, why even bother complain, is complaint even productive anyways.  I will put no trust in princes and get on with my day, seeya later.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

The article explains that we have a problem with productivity.  Below that you post it it's all because we are taxed too highly.   I would have to be convinced that if taxes were lowered most people would do more than just buy a nicer house.

 

 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The problem is that people who make $150-200k per year now are considered middle class.  They aren't rich.  They have big mortgages that they are paying off and have accumulated debt as well.  So you can't tax these people any more than they are taxed now as the economy would tank.  The "rich" people will just set up trusts and corporations to pay less in taxes like they do now.  So, instead of simply raising taxes, why not have the government spend more time closing loopholes for the rich to avoid paying taxes?  That might be a better solution to the problem.  That is an instant way to raise more revenues without penalizing anyone except the super rich.

 

I don't consider paying 50% tax as a "low tax" environment.  That is the logic of someone who doesn't really care about their money and someone who will just bend over for the government when they have run out of ideas on how to raise revenues.  We need smarter people in government.  There are ways to increase revenues without having to resort to more taxation.  When the top rate was 60-90% what were the house prices then?  What was the income to house price ratio?  With our accumulated debt and with the housing crisis we can't afford to be taxing anyone anymore than they are paying right now...

 

Agree with all this, it's just that there isn't any party really walking the walk on this. And for the likely winner next election, I don't see anything from the Conservatives both provincially and federally except a doubling down of this problem. Cutting taxes for the top and leaving everyone else saddling it while gutting healthcare/social services to pay for it.

[Boudrias]

19 minutes ago, Future Considerations said:

 

 

 

Hi aGENT, nothing as bold as your statement : 

 

In the news yesterday : 

 

The Bank of Canada is warning that waning productivity growth in the country is an “emergency” that can force higher interest rates and limit rising wages for Canadians.  

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/10384078/bank-of-canada-productivity-emergency/

 

Carolyn Rogers, “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” she told the crowd.

 

Canadian productivity rates have fallen in six consecutive quarters. 

 

One of the main issues dragging down Canadian productivity rates is a lack of business investment. 

 

Businesses also need more certainty in the Canadian policy environment to be able to invest confidently in their operations, Rogers added.

 

Government incentives and regulatory approaches that change year-to-year do not inspire confidence among business, Rogers said.

 

Rogers noted that while productivity has indeed taken off in the U.S., Canadian levels are on par with where they stood about seven years ago.

---------

 

Most Canadians don't have enough after tax money to invest in local economies, to innovate, to become entrepreneurial and for many, to save up enough after tax dollars, to buy themselves a property or an investment property.

 

The Governments solution seems to be :  hire more government workers, increase taxation, run large deficits, very limited infrastructure spending.

 

Strange that BoC response to bad productivity is to leave interest rates higher for longer.  I thought they wanted to slow the economy (lower productivity) to battle inflation,  now they need to leave interest rates higher to battle low productivity....  i don't get it. 

 

Higher interest rates and high rates of taxation are a problem for me and many in our country.   We are a young country with many hard working and smart citizens, we just don't have the capital required to invest in ourselves, in our businesses, in our communities and even in our country.  I would think more and more Canadians are likely choosing to invest their rrsps into foreign economies.    Our country is resource rich, we are a young country.  Our citizens need to be empowered, not governed harder with excessive murky regulations that change year to year. 

 

do i really have to explain that when you rule me harder my productivity doth wane.  I shall render unto ceaser what is his, why even bother complain, is complaint even productive anyways.  I will put no trust in princes and get on with my day, seeya later.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

The Trudeau government has invested capital into university research programs, especially technology, that has produced interesting ideas. Although my knowledge is limited on technology how these ideas are monetized to benefit Canada is critical. The history has been that Canadian startups have to access capital in the USA market, particularly Silicon Valley. 
 

To me there has to be a Team Canada approach to industrial development that transcends whatever political party is in power. A multi decade approach. Two examples that come to mind is France and Singapore. Someone earlier suggested Canada is a young country, a small country. Canada is as old as the USA and we supposedly have 40 million people. That is not small. 
 

The Americans regularly eat our lunch if you want to look on the big side. Bit let’s look at Norway at 7 million people on the small side. Norway also outperforms Canada by almost any metric. We have to do much better.

[Future Considerations]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

The article explains that we have a problem with productivity.  Below that you post it it's all because we are taxed too highly.   I would have to be convinced that if taxes were lowered most people would do more than just buy a nicer house.

 

 

 

From a google search :  As a share of the GDP, real estate makes up more than 20 per cent. Moreover, when this measurement is isolated on a quarter-over-quarter basis, housing accounted for close to half of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2022.   

The three largest industries in Canada are real estate, mining, and manufacturing.

So yeah, having some money in your pocket to buy a nicer home does increase productivity.  Buying/Selling houses is big business in Canada.  And why not have a tangible asset to dump your fiat currency into, you have to live somewhere.  

When you actually have some aftertax dollars saved up and have confidence in the Canadian mining sector this may mean investing rrsps into Candian mining companies. 

 
Having a bit of money in your pocket and not having to leverage your own assets in a high interest rate environment may mean an individual or a local company will innovate and begin manufacturing something others will want.  
 

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Future Considerations said:

 

From a google search :  As a share of the GDP, real estate makes up more than 20 per cent. Moreover, when this measurement is isolated on a quarter-over-quarter basis, housing accounted for close to half of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2022.   

The three largest industries in Canada are real estate, mining, and manufacturing.

So yeah, having some money in your pocket to buy a nicer home does increase productivity.  Buying/Selling houses is big business in Canada.  And why not have a tangible asset to dump your fiat currency into, you have to live somewhere.  

When you actually have some aftertax dollars saved up and have confidence in the Canadian mining sector this may mean investing rrsps into Candian mining companies. 

 
Having a bit of money in your pocket and not having to leverage your own assets in a high interest rate environment may mean an individual or a local company will innovate and begin manufacturing something others will want.  
 

My main point was that lowered taxes does not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity.  It might, but I see no definite proof of it.   I could have said buy a Ferrari.   You never know what people are going to do with their money.

[Elias Pettersson]

35 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

My main point was that lowered taxes does not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity.  It might, but I see no definite proof of it.   I could have said buy a Ferrari.   You never know what people are going to do with their money.

 

If you are buying a bigger house, that 100% helps the economy.  You would need to pay the property transfer tax (yes another tax), pay legal fees to a lawyer, hire a property inspector to check the home, hire a mortgage broker to get you a mortgage, pay a realtor to sell your current place, pay a contractor for any renovations.  All of this activity puts money into people's pockets as well as adding tax revenue to the government.  Real Estate is literally our #1 resource in Canada and accounts for as huge part of our GDP.

 

As for buying a Ferrari, you would need to pay a luxury tax to purchase it (yes another tax), so that is helping with government revenues as well.  See how things work?  If people have more money in their pockets, especially the rich, they will spend more too.  That's how the economy works.  You want to stop the economy altogether, then simply increase interest rates and taxes.  That will stop everything in its tracks...

Edited March 27 by Elias Pettersson

[Future Considerations]

31 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

My main point was that lowered taxes does not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity.  It might, but I see no definite proof of it.   I could have said buy a Ferrari.   You never know what people are going to do with their money.

 

Believe in people, not government. 

 

The Ferrari will generate economic productivity, it will be imported, purchased, serviced many times, sold again, bought again, taken out on the town for the night and parked outside of restaurants.  It will be insured and taxed over and over again.  Maybe it will be an administrator in government with a guaranteed high paying job with easy access to credit who will be able to afford the Ferrari because they don't believe in actually owning real estate property in the community they live in and so don't have to pay high interest rates or property taxes, they've been lucky enough to be in the same condo for 20 years and the rent is really low.   Aside from the high paying job, the administrator emailing policy documents from one computer to the other until someone finally make a decision some years later will not generate much in the way of economic activity, in fact, it will hurt economic activity as 2 years later they finally make a decision that doesn't allow a mine expansion to go forward or a housing development to go forward.  They wasted a lot of people's time, but hey they got paid and now they have a Ferrari.  

 

I read this today, we're training Government that it's fine to disintegrate money.

 

Meanwhile here's yet another proposed tax from our overlord administrators :  
https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/03/26/canada-municipal-income-tax-policy/amp/

 

  

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I am a dividend investor. If a company does not share their profits with me via dividends then why should I invest in it.

I aim for those stonks too, although I went off book and gained and then lost a lot of money in the nacent weed industry, I generally look for a steady drip of dividend payments in the stocks i buy. One I have recently bought into pays 2% every quarter. Makes paying the bill at Superstore a little less taxing every grocery trip. hint hint. 

[chris12345]

11 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If you are buying a bigger house, that 100% helps the economy.  You would need to pay the property transfer tax (yes another tax), pay legal fees to a lawyer, hire a property inspector to check the home, hire a mortgage broker to get you a mortgage, pay a realtor to sell your current place, pay a contractor for any renovations.  All of this activity puts money into people's pockets as well as adding tax revenue to the government.  Real Estate is literally our #1 resource in Canada and accounts for as huge part of our GDP.

 

As for buying a Ferrari, you would need to pay a luxury tax to purchase it (yes another tax), so that is helping with government revenues as well.  See how things work?  If people have more money in their pockets, especially the rich, they will spend more too.  That's how the economy works.  You want to stop the economy altogether, then simply increase interest rates and taxes.  That will stop everything in its tracks...

You can also start new or innovative businesses with cash, aka investments due to extra cash and lower taxes.

[Optimist Prime]

Good news for today!

 

Afghan interpreter hunted by Taliban safe after campaign by retired brigadier-general in Newfoundland

Quote

After more than two years of evading the Taliban — and a dogged campaign led by retired Canadian military members urging the federal government to keep its promise — Afghan interpreter Mohammad Arif Yousafi is safe in Alberta.

"Finally we get into Canada. We arrived in Canada. So we are happy," he said.

Yousafi, his wife and three children were brought to Medicine Hat earlier this month.

He fought long and hard to escape Afghanistan after working as an interpreter with the Canadian military in many parts of the country or six years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/afghan-interpreter-safe-1.7154428

 

quite literally the least we could do. 

[Satchmo]

12 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If you are buying a bigger house, that 100% helps the economy.  You would need to pay the property transfer tax (yes another tax), pay legal fees to a lawyer, hire a property inspector to check the home, hire a mortgage broker to get you a mortgage, pay a realtor to sell your current place, pay a contractor for any renovations.  All of this activity puts money into people's pockets as well as adding tax revenue to the government.  Real Estate is literally our #1 resource in Canada and accounts for as huge part of our GDP.

 

As for buying a Ferrari, you would need to pay a luxury tax to purchase it (yes another tax), so that is helping with government revenues as well.  See how things work?  If people have more money in their pockets, especially the rich, they will spend more too.  That's how the economy works.  You want to stop the economy altogether, then simply increase interest rates and taxes.  That will stop everything in its tracks...

 

3 minutes ago, Future Considerations said:

 

Believe in people, not government. 

 

The Ferrari will generate economic productivity, it will be imported, purchased, serviced many times, sold again, bought again, taken out on the town for the night and parked outside of restaurants.  It will be insured and taxed over and over again.  Maybe it will be an administrator in government with a guaranteed high paying job with easy access to credit who will be able to afford the Ferrari because they don't believe in actually owning real estate property in the community they live in and so don't have to pay high interest rates or property taxes, they've been lucky enough to be in the same condo for 20 years and the rent is really low.   Aside from the high paying job, the administrator emailing policy documents from one computer to the other until someone finally make a decision some years later will not generate much in the way of economic activity, in fact, it will hurt economic activity as 2 years later they finally make a decision that doesn't allow a mine expansion to go forward or a housing development to go forward.  They wasted a lot of people's time, but hey they got paid and now they have a Ferrari.  

 

I read this today, we're training Government that it's fine to disintegrate money.

 

Meanwhile here's yet another proposed tax from our overlord administrators :  
https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/03/26/canada-municipal-income-tax-policy/amp/

 

  

 

 

We'll see.  Stay tuned for the future.

 

(That may sound flippant and dismissive but I have a feeling we could go on and on and on and still not agree)

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I am a dividend investor. If a company does not share their profits with me via dividends then why should I invest in it. A steady stream of dividends helps pay for my retirement. As a small business owner I don’t have a pension other than CPP. Most small business owners do not sell their businesses for much capital gain. Corporations can partially fund their operations by selling stock to the public. The public, like me, buy that stock for dividend income or others will buy the stock in hopes of long term capital gain. 
 

Canada is not the ideal investment environment anymore. Many of our major corporations have in essence left Canada. Enbridge just announced a new gas pipeline that will take gas from the Permian field to USA LNG plants on the Texas coast. All investment that could/should have happened on the BC coast. Trans Canada is no different. 

 

Exactly. Now double your tax rate and see how many companies you invest in. 

[Boudrias]

16 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Exactly. Now double your tax rate and see how many companies you invest in. 

It has to come down to an arithmetic calculation. People can throw all sorts of ‘what if’s’ at the investment decision but if the bottom line isn’t there it simply won’t happen, nor should it. That certainly doesn’t mean there cannot be a number of solid investments that benefit a wide swath of society. 

[Future Considerations]

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

 

We'll see.  Stay tuned for the future.

 

(That may sound flippant and dismissive but I have a feeling we could go on and on and on and still not agree)

 

Lover of taxation, i wonder why,
dismissive of hard truth, facts indeed,
the heart of man and the heart of the institution, the same,
it is not idealism, just * greed.  

 

edit :  i could have predicted this future,

lover of taxation would be certain to use the confused emoji. 
Where are your words Satchmo, where are your words,
and you ominously reference the future, 
my immediate future will be the rebellion against such boredom

 

seeya later.

 

 

 

Edited March 27 by Future Considerations

[Bob Long]

11 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

It has to come down to an arithmetic calculation. People can throw all sorts of ‘what if’s’ at the investment decision but if the bottom line isn’t there it simply won’t happen, nor should it. That certainly doesn’t mean there cannot be a number of solid investments that benefit a wide swath of society. 

 

Yep. Dividend paying companies are something we want to be careful to not chase out of Canada, but of course there's a mix of companies you want to invest in. It's actually really interesting to look at who Canadas big pension funds invest in - that's an exercise I think everyone should do, I think it would do a lot of good for people to understand what powers their union pension.

[Satchmo]

29 minutes ago, Future Considerations said:

 

Lover of taxation, i wonder why,
dismissive of hard truth, facts indeed,
the heart of man and the heart of the institution, the same,
it is not idealism, just * greed.  

 

edit :  i could have predicted this future,

lover of taxation would be certain to use the confused emoji. 
Where are your words Satchmo, where are your words,
and you ominously reference the future, 
my immediate future will be the rebellion against such boredom

 

seeya later.

 

 

 

I have no words.  I just thought it was bad poetry.   We are all entitled to our opinions, especially regarding poetry.

[Duodenum]

3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The problem is that people who make $150-200k per year now are considered middle class.  They aren't rich.  They have big mortgages that they are paying off and have accumulated debt as well.  So you can't tax these people any more than they are taxed now as the economy would tank.  The "rich" people will just set up trusts and corporations to pay less in taxes like they do now.  So, instead of simply raising taxes, why not have the government spend more time closing loopholes for the rich to avoid paying taxes?  That might be a better solution to the problem.  That is an instant way to raise more revenues without penalizing anyone except the super rich.

 

I don't consider paying 50% tax as a "low tax" environment.  That is the logic of someone who doesn't really care about their money and someone who will just bend over for the government when they have run out of ideas on how to raise revenues.  We need smarter people in government.  There are ways to increase revenues without having to resort to more taxation.  When the top rate was 60-90% what were the house prices then?  What was the income to house price ratio?  With our accumulated debt and with the housing crisis we can't afford to be taxing anyone anymore than they are paying right now...

Closing loopholes and adding to the top are not mutually exclusive, both can be done. 

I compare it to historical 60-90+% tax rates of the roaring 1950-1980s, which is why i consider and label the 2000s a low tax rate environment. 

 

The average tax rate currently for someone making 250,000 per year is 35%. Top tax bracket is 45% with those making over 250ish at 53%. 

 

Coincidently, it was 2002 when the Canadian housing bubble started. That started about 2 years after the Income tax Amendments in 2000 that reduced taxes considerably. More disposable income for businesses and rich folk meant more homes and businesses being bought up and consolidated. The commodity boom also injected a lot of money into their pockets.

 

Tax cuts are nice for increasing spending money for a short period of time. The enhanced purchasing power puts upward pressure on prices, however, and you eventually end up worse than you were before.

 

One of the only ways around it would be to increase revenue through national development but our government appears allergic to doing that.

 

Unfortunately, all we can do is nibble at the problem because if the government pushes too hard, we'll get an ugly recession.

 

Are we better off because of the tax cuts from earlier? 

[MattJVD]

On 3/25/2024 at 7:36 PM, Warhippy said:

When I remind people who say how great things were back in the 90s, 80s, 70s etc how high taxes were they get very quiet

Try reminding Americans that in their golden age of post WW2 growth the highest marginal income tax rate was 90% when they built the interstate system. It was 75% when they went to the moon.

Edited March 27 by MattJVD

[MattJVD]

21 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Closing loopholes and adding to the top are not mutually exclusive, both can be done. 

I compare it to historical 60-90+% tax rates of the roaring 1950-1980s, which is why i consider and label the 2000s a low tax rate environment. 

 

The average tax rate currently for someone making 250,000 per year is 35%. Top tax bracket is 45% with those making over 250ish at 53%. 

 

Coincidently, it was 2002 when the Canadian housing bubble started. That started about 2 years after the Income tax Amendments in 2000 that reduced taxes considerably. More disposable income for businesses and rich folk meant more homes and businesses being bought up and consolidated. The commodity boom also injected a lot of money into their pockets.

 

Tax cuts are nice for increasing spending money for a short period of time. The enhanced purchasing power puts upward pressure on prices, however, and you eventually end up worse than you were before.

 

One of the only ways around it would be to increase revenue through national development but our government appears allergic to doing that.

 

Unfortunately, all we can do is nibble at the problem because if the government pushes too hard, we'll get an ugly recession.

 

Are we better off because of the tax cuts from earlier? 

I'd be a big fan of graduating the capital gains inclusion and dividend tax credits. Seems kinda silly that only half of a capital gain is taxed, maybe leave it at half for your first 10 or 20 grand then bump it up to two thirds. Keep the life-time capital gains exception and principal residence exemptions intact though.

 

Same deal with dividends. Eliminate the dividend tax credit after your first, maybe $50 grand? of dividend income.

 

I haven't put too much thought into the income levels where phasing or graduating them out occure, but I think it would be beneficial in principal.

[MattJVD]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The problem is that people who make $150-200k per year now are considered middle class.  They aren't rich.  They have big mortgages that they are paying off and have accumulated debt as well.  So you can't tax these people any more than they are taxed now as the economy would tank.  The "rich" people will just set up trusts and corporations to pay less in taxes like they do now.  So, instead of simply raising taxes, why not have the government spend more time closing loopholes for the rich to avoid paying taxes?  That might be a better solution to the problem.  That is an instant way to raise more revenues without penalizing anyone except the super rich.

 

I don't consider paying 50% tax as a "low tax" environment.  That is the logic of someone who doesn't really care about their money and someone who will just bend over for the government when they have run out of ideas on how to raise revenues.  We need smarter people in government.  There are ways to increase revenues without having to resort to more taxation.  When the top rate was 60-90% what were the house prices then?  What was the income to house price ratio?  With our accumulated debt and with the housing crisis we can't afford to be taxing anyone anymore than they are paying right now...

My big accountant idea is to deem certain loans as leases. The super wealthy avoid paying tax by having no income: If you have 10 billion worth of shares in your company, you use that as collateral for a personal $100 million loan at a very low interest rate (because there is no risk, if you don't repay the bank keeps 100 million worth of shares). Instead of paying income tax at 50%, you're paying 3% interest on the loan. When your shares appreciate, and are now worth 15 billion, you take out a new, larger loan with the same number of shares used as collateral and pay the first loan back. The tax bill doesn't come until you die and your estate sells a few shares to settle any outstanding loans.

 

I would propose these transactions be deemed as leasing the shares to a financial institution for tax purposes, then the money you receive is earned income in the form of lease payments and is taxed appropriately. 

[Optimist Prime]

Some interesting and good thoughts here vis a vis taxes, but I like dealing in broad, general strokes:

 

If anyone is expecting Poilievre to reduce taxes, and lower deficits, then someone should start explaining right now what is being cut, because we can balance the federal budget or reduce taxes, but we can't do both without massive cuts to every portfolio. 

Is it the seniors, the poor, the disabled, the veterans, the first nations, or all of the above who are going to suffer great loss of programs and life sustaining funds in order for P.P Le Pew to show that he is different from the Nice Hair guy?

 

Expect more of this bullshit double talk: a price on carbon at 65 a ton, but its not a tax, LOL. 

 

[chris12345]

1 hour ago, MattJVD said:

I'd be a big fan of graduating the capital gains inclusion and dividend tax credits. Seems kinda silly that only half of a capital gain is taxed, maybe leave it at half for your first 10 or 20 grand then bump it up to two thirds. Keep the life-time capital gains exception and principal residence exemptions intact though.

 

Same deal with dividends. Eliminate the dividend tax credit after your first, maybe $50 grand? of dividend income.

 

I haven't put too much thought into the income levels where phasing or graduating them out occure, but I think it would be beneficial in principal.

Dividends aren't that easy due to integration.

 

Capital gains used to have a 75% inclusion rate. Fine balance with rewarding investment and taxation policy.

Edited March 27 by chris12345

[MattJVD]

12 minutes ago, chris12345 said:

Dividends aren't that easy due to integration.

 

Capital gains used to have a 75% inclusion rate. Fine balance with rewarding investment and taxation policy.

Yeah, dividends are tricky. I still have nightmares about calculating gross ups and determining the eligible refundable dividend tax on hand from my tax exam hahaha. Glad I don't do tax in my day job now.

[chris12345]

Just now, MattJVD said:

Yeah, dividends are tricky. I still have nightmares about calculating gross ups and determining the eligible refundable dividend tax on hand from my tax exam hahaha. Glad I don't do tax in my day job now.

Haha I like my tax......rdtoh in my younger days.....how many cookies in the cookie jar?